About your Search

20121202
20121210
SHOW
( more )
STATION
MSNBCW 81
CNNW 44
CSPAN 23
MSNBC 23
CNBC 18
FBC 17
CURRENT 15
CNN 10
CSPAN2 10
FOXNEWS 10
KQED (PBS) 10
KQEH (PBS) 4
WHUT (Howard University Television) 4
KPIX (CBS) 3
KRCB (PBS) 3
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 335
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 335 (some duplicates have been removed)
spending in order to reduce trillion dollar deficits and a national debt that is now mind-boggling league not -- monotonous. house minority leader disagrees vehemently with the speaker on how to reduce deficits and debt. today she offered a paradoxical statement on fiscal policy that would make both casey stiegel and yogi berra proud. the nation now just 24 days away from $600 billion of spending cuts and tax increases that will automatically kicked in. and pelosi has some wise words for washington. please listen terror. >> this is a moment of truth. the clock is ticking. christmas is coming. the goose is getting fat. in many homes across america it is very, very lean times. you cannot cut your way to deficit reduction. lou: that's right. pelosi says we cannot get our way to deficit reduction. listen to the top democrat in the house of representatives, the former speaker of the house unveiling -- on dealing with the fiscal crisis one more time. >> in many homes across america ad is a very, very lean time. you cannot cut your way to deficit reduction. lou: today said minority leader appear
deficits for as far as the eye can see. washington has got a spending problem, not a revenue problem. if the president doesn't agree with our proposal, i believe he's got an obligation to families and small businesses to offer a plan of his own, a plan that can pass both chambers of the congress. we're ready and eager to talk to the president about such a plan. >> you did speak with the president earlier this week. can you characterize that call? did he have any kind of count offer and we understand that he is making clear that it's got to be increase rates for the wealthy or no deal. are you willing to give a little bit? >> the phone call was pleasant but was more of the same. the conversations that the staff had yesterday were more of the same. it's time for the president if he's serious to come back to was a count offer. >> the jobs record indicated unemployment is down roughly a full point from this time last year. [inaudible] [inaudible] why take such a risk when the job numbers are improving. >> because increasing tax rates will hit many small businesses that produce 60 to 70%
. and then this party that paraded around as the big deficit hawks, the guys that wanted to control spending, the only cuts they put on the table is playing at margins, increasing retirement age from 65 to 67 and adjusting rates for social security. this hasn't presented itself as a party that wants to cut spending. on one hand you have president obama's proposal, which most agree is the responsible way of raising the debt, raising rates. and responsible cuts on entitlements and discretionary spending versus republicans who are divided against something that is a chicken hawk when it comes to the deficits, that is the boehner approach, or the more extremist position which is absolutely nothing.รง so this is an extraordinary position for the republican party to have evolved into. >> you must respond to what julian just said. >> i like julian an awful lot but i think what he said is entirely wrong. it's fascinating president obama last july, july of 2011, said we can get $1.2 trillion in revenue where we don't have to raise marginal tax rates and close loopholes and julian says most economists agree, i
republican members of the house and the senate speak out on the need or a deficit approach that includes raising taxes on wealthy individuals and to moving right away to ensure that 98% of families do not race a tax increase. we need to look -- do not face a tax increase. we need to look at history. what we saw in the 1990s and 2000s, there was no relationship between lower marginal tax rates for the wealthiest among us an economic growth. first during the clinton administration, the top marginal tax rate was raised on the wealthiest individuals and the economy grew at its fastest rate in a generation. it added more than 22 million jobs. during the following eight years, the top marginal rate dax tax rate was lower, but economy never regained its strength from the reviews decade. middle-class families are vulnerable when the recession began at the end of 2007. i hope this hearing is helpful not just in this hearing, but across this country to people who are watching and waiting for congress to act. i will say more at the end about some of our members who are leaving. it is -- it has been
situation to be in. >> as the conversation shifts really to the bottom line in the deficit. at the end of the day the whole thing is about -- it's optical illusions and face saving for republicans. whether it's the notion they may not vote yes but just present, which is complete smoke and mirrors or the fundamental argument which is closing loopholes is not a tax increase. of course it is. at the core this is about asking americans to pay more americans to the federal government. this is just -- it's -- bill clinton called it kabuki theater. it's a way for republicans not to be ashamed and walk back the ideological core they've run on for the past few years. >> if president obama is able to come out and say i'm going to support getting rid of tax ducks for charitable organizations, hospitals, universities, religious organizations, i want to get rid of that tax deduction f he puts his finger -- his hand anywhere near that decision, he's going to be a loony toon every hospital, church, philanthropic in the united states, from the rockefeller down to the littlest catholic charity will fig
money, and then on everybody else. not so he can lower the debt or the deficit, but so he can spend to his heart's content. for months, the president has been saying that all he wanted to raise taxes on the top 2% so he can tackle the debt and the deficit. however, yesterday, he finally revealed that that is not really is true intent. by demanding the power to raise the debt limit whenever he wants, by as much as he wants, he showed what he is really after is assuming unprecedented power to spend taxpayer dollars without any limit at all. this is not about getting a handle on deficits or debt or him. it is about spending even more than he already has. why else would you demand the power to raise the debt limit on his own? by the way, why on earth would we consider giving a president who has brought us four years of trillion dollar unchecked deficits of 30 to borrow? he is the last person who should have borrowing power. the only way we will cut spending around here is by using the debate over the debt limit to do it. now the president wants to remove that to cut all together. of cou
the president called his deficit reduction commission to give the president and -- an idea what we could do to get our fiscal house in order. i want to show in you this chart, mr. speaker, it's the chronic deficits we have had in this country, goes back to 1970. all this red ink represents the inflation adjusted, 2012 dollars, comparing apples to apples across this chart, the deficit that is we have had in this country, and you see going back to 197 o 0, mr. speaker, which happens to be the year of my birth, we have run a deficit every single year from 199 . you remember 1998 we had newt gingrich leading the first republican u.s. house of representatives in modern times. bill clinton in the white house. they came together to solve some big problems. welfare reform, health insurance reform. folks forget about health insurance reform. we did away with pre-existing conditions. did away with all of the impediments in the large group markets, what they call the plans, had great success in that area, and finally got back into some positive territory. to be truthful, this assumes that all the fede
campaigned for re-election on the idea of a, quote, balanced approach, end quote, to deficit reduction, a mixture of tax increases and spending cuts. here's the plan that the republicans say you presented to them. >> i can tell you what i presented. it will be helpful. >> chris: let me -- >> it is our plan, let me do it. let me explain it. >> chris: i'd like to ask you about this part of it and you can tell me. >> okay. >> chris: $1.6 trillion in tax increases. more than $80 billion in new stimulus spending, next year, and, unspecified nonguaranteed spending cuts. question, is that your idea of balance. >> it is, let me explain what is in the explain they didn't report to you and explain, to people, which is, we propose alongside the trillion dollars in spending cuts we agreed with republicans, last year, on defense and a range of other government programs, proposed $600 billion of detailed reforms and savings, to our health care and other government programs, that is $600 billion. in fact, the health care savings in that plan, are larger than the plans we have seen republicans in the
to the labour party. they want to be in government and they claim they want to cut the deficit. what would they cut? what would they cut? if they object to the local government settlement and the object to the defense settlement and the objective the nhs budget and the object to the education budget, even though nhs schools are going up, and what exactly would they do? the problem is as was evident from the shadow chancellor's response, they didn't have anything to say on these matters but if they had a credible deficit plan then we would listen to the questions they ask us about the priorities of those plans. >> john stephenson. >> this cools and colleges of 270 million are extremely welcome. schools and colleges such as those in my constituency plans on the runway ready to take off, just in a little additional financial support. will the chancellor help those colleges and schools? >> i'm very happy to look personally at the case my honorable friend makes for his local education facility. these are of course other government departments but we have provided the money for education, for ne
, we are talking about deficit deduction. we are talking about raising revenue to a level in which can begin to support the kinds of investments we need to make to train our future work force and to create an environment in which we can care for the elderly. >> the think americans will remain optimistic but this did of the economy? if we have not tackle the things we have just talked about like the cost of education, the housing market? we are figuring out some philosophical issues about taxing and funding? >> i think the economy has been growing slowly and steadily all in the absence of any movement, which we have seen over the test of the last year. i have worked on guantanamo for the past 10 years. my sense is that if there is some movement until the positive direction, which have not seen out of washington and enter a long time, -- in a long time, at least we will not see head winds. we are making some progress. i see that continue. >> i want to come back to what todd said earlier. i am concerned about confidence being fragile. todd reference what happened until august of 2011. we
to make sure that the wealthiest in this country help pay down this large deficit. >> will the democrats just wait? >> we have a lot of discussions going on in the senate and the various places. we know what the parameters are and the speaker knows what the parameters are. the president is ready, willing, and able to sit down and seriously negotiate with us but they have to be willing to come to the table with specifics like he is doing. >> we have done something. if you look at either proposal, they want every tax rate to go up. we all agree that group of rates should not go up. we just disagree on the top 2%. let's go where we agree which would be the current rates and make sure the folks in the middle class don't have an increase. we all agree on that. but they want more and more. we are saying that you have to start somewhere. they don't want to use the procedure to allow their own people to vote on it. they are holding the american people, the middle-class hostage for small issues they want to fight on and play the press war. we agree on these rates to be lower. we just disagree on
that we need to go forward in getting our economy turned around, in reducing our deficit in creating jobs. so i think when jim deminute looked around, he looked and saw a future where he would be standing by himself very often and likely face ago dwindling even greater dwindling number of tea party advocates and allies. i think he headed for the doors because he thinks that probably, as he said, the only way he's going to have a significant impact is through a think tank. >> to switch over to your side of the capitol the house of representatives, the tea party there seems to be playing defense. i know alan west, one of your close buddies was upset that he lost, he is gone. how does it feel when you look at john boehner the speaker republican leader and he knows every day that the tea party which had held him hostage the last two years the tea party in the house is playing defense, as well it seems. >> well, i was playing more than defense. unfortunately it feels like in the house the tail continues to wag the dog. you still seem to have a leadership on the republican side in the house led
, and he said that it is untanble to not cut them because they are driving the budget deficit, and, you know, the whole entitlement issues, the real core of the problem, the taxing issue, yes, the pyrotechnics, and its -- there's the struggle between the republican and democratic view, but all the numbers people know that it's the entitlement issue so if there's a fix, trajectory to make it somehow stable, that would be -- that's the relation. uh-oh, you have something from the book. >> your books are all ultimately about power, how it's used, squandered, built, and so the sub text of the events that you write about is how life works, how washington works. my favorite sentence in "the price of politics" is, "when you need friends, it's too late to make them." what have you learned about washington and life from the grand bargain? what is the hundred-year lesson from how that unraveled? >> well, you mean last year? what happened last year? well, that they found a way to postpone everything, and, again, they can postpone lots of the problems, but postponement is the theme. the cliche, "ki
, to deficit reduction. a mixture of tax increases and spending cuts. here's the plan that the republicans say you presented to them this week. >> i can tell you what i presented if it would be helpful. >> let me ask you. >> but it's our plan. why don't you let me do t why don't you let me explain it. >> well, i would like to ask you about this part of it and then anything i leave out you can tell me. 1.$6 trillion in tax increases, more than $80 billion in new stimulus spending next year, and an unspecified nonguaranteed spending cuts. question, is that your idea of balance? >> it is. let me explain what is in this plan that they didn't report to you and they didn't explain to people, which is we have proposed alongside the trillion dollars in spending cuts, we agreed with republicans last year on defense and other range ever programs, we proposed $600 billion of detailed reforms and savings to our healthcare and medicare programs. that's $600 billion. in fact, the healthcare savings in that plan are larger than the plans we've seen republicans in the past. >> is that what was in the budget?
to prosperity or to cut our way out of this deficit problem that we have. we're going to need more revenues. in order to do that, that starts with higher rates for the folks at the top. >> reporter: the president did say today he would consider lowering rates again for the top two percent next year as part of a broader tax overhaul. the house republican plan envisions $2.2 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade. $800 billion would come from new revenues but with no hike in tax rates for top earners. instead the plan relies on $1.2 trillion in reduced spending including $600 billion from changes in medicare and medicaid. at the white house today, the president met with a bipartisan group of governors pressing his own plan for deficit reduction. that proposal, $1.6 trillion in revenue from tax increases on the wealthy and $600 billion in spending cuts mostly from reductions in medicare. he also wants authority to raise the debt ceiling without congressional intervention. but governors emerged afterwards treading a line between the two sides. delaware governor jack markel, a democ
the incentives. we do so much money that you can reduce the deficit significantly, lower the rate, still have the group you are asking to pay more, pay more if you're willing to broaden the base. the point i would make is that as difficult as it is, we should use this opportunity to think about what a most sensible tax system is, and one of the pieces we have made progress on, which will have real revenues as a budget deal, and that along with spending and economists is critically important. no matter how we raise or how much we raise the revenues, a small or big enough, we should strive to raise that in the most efficient way possible, and that is including tax reform as part of this overall deal is a critical part of growth. and shouldn't be lost in the mix. >> david, do you want to get in? >> i want to echo a number of the comments, because the way i describe it is if we had actually been trying to develop an incomprehensible, confusing, and globally uncompetitive system which could not have done -- system we could not have done a better job than what we got. there is a something to the pr
. [ screaming ] oh grover! electric deficit boogaloo. 29 minutes after the hour. right back on "the stephanie miller show." >> wow! i've never seen anything like this. >> when disaster strikes sometimes the only way out is to look within. current tv digs deep into the determination and escape. "trapped" experience the drama. back to back to back. >> hold on mates! >> catch the "trapped" mini-marathon saturday starting at 1 eastern. on current tv. rich, chewy caramel rolled up in smooth milk chocolate. don't forget about that payroll meeting. rolo.get your smooth on. also in minis. get irresistibly clean and fresh carpets in your home with resolve deep clean powder. the moist powder removes three times more dirt than vacuuming alone while neutralizing odors for a clean you can see, smell and really enjoy. don't just vacuum clean. resolve clean. [ singing christmas carols in background ] aunt sally's singing again. it's a tradition honey. [ singing christmas carols ] mmmm. [ female announcer ] make new traditions with pillsbury grands! cinnamon rolls. [ f
. tea party 2, the sequel. [ screaming ] oh grover! electric deficit boogaloo. 29 minutes after the hour. right back on "the stephanie miller show." alright, in 15 minutes we're going to do the young turks. i think the number one thing that viewers like about the young turks is that we're honest. they know that i'm not bs'ing them with some hidden agenda, actually supporting one party or the other. when the democrats are wrong, they know that i'm going to be the first one to call them out. they can question whether i'm right, but i think that the audience gets that this guy, to the best of his ability, is trying to look out for us. [ male announcer ] red lobster's crabfest ends soon. hurry in and try five succulent entrees like our tender snow crab paired with savory garlic shrimp. just $12.99. come into red lobster and sea food differently. and introducing 7 lunch choices for just $7.99. salads, sandwiches, and more. rich, chewy caramel rolled up in smooth milk chocolate. don't forget about that payroll meeting. rolo.get your smooth
to hearing today from the experts that we have before us today on how to reduce the deficit while protecting middle income families. as we enter the holiday season, americans should not have to face the uncertainty that many will face with regard to their taxes. there is no reason that middle income families should go into this holiday season without knowing whether their taxes will go up next year. last year, democrats and republicans work together to cut nearly $1 trillion of spending. now we need to continue that bi-partisan work to cut more spending, and to bring in additional revenues. if congress fails to reach an agreement under the budget control act of 2011, $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts will take place between 2013 and 2021. republicans and democrats agree that indiscriminate across-the- board cuts is not the right and to do at this time in our nation's history. if we trigger the automatic spending cuts and tax increases, gross margin bottom will fall by half a percentage point. we will reverse the hard-fought gains over the past few years. we cannot afford to go backwar
there will be a benefit, which means we do not have these deficits. in the fullness of time, whether a struggle last summer was worth it, if we have the spending cuts and deficits are lower, it might have higher economic growth in the long run because we went to that struggle last year. >> your position is that we should be ready to go through that struggle again and to call upon the national debt is necessary in order to enforce spending limits? >> that, of course, is not my position. we should never default on the national debt. the politics of debt reduction, which you on the better than me, are very difficult. i am not a political expert. if there is something we need to do that helps deficit reduction occur, i am not willing to stop process. >> you are saying defaulting of the national debt might be something we need to do now and then? >> no, sir. we do not default last summer. >> we did not. but we might in january of february. is it your position that we should be willing to default on the debt if that is necessary in order to force spending cuts? >> i would not be willing to default on the
and screaming that can't be part of it, yet all of them privately will tell you what's driving the deficit more than any single thing of medicare and medicaid and longer-term social security, so the mere fact that we are discussing those types of things fit. in terms of the votes, look, if it's going to be a deal there has to be votes from both sides. the reality is -- and these guys, the president and the speaker dealt with one another before. they've never been able to come to a deal. they came to a huge deal during the lame-duck session in 2010 on extending the bush tax cuts. they came to another deal without shutting down the government in april of 2011 cutting discretionary spending by billions of dollars and they came to another one on the debt ceiling as well which was a 2.2 trillion dollar long-term reduction in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling. so, you know, the need to take it to another level. this is a more complex problem, and it's the beginning of a series of negotiations between the two. they are going to be together for the next four years. the president won the elec
the deficit, create jobs. so we know we have to have growth. we know we have to make cuts. we know we have to have revenue. you can't get from here to there without it. so if you read closely what they have in their letter, even though it's bare bones, you have voucher rising of medicare, you have a return to the ryan budget, which priorities are not priorities that i think the american people share. >> rates, can there be a deal done with the rates not going up? >> no. i'm an appropriator for a long time in the congress. we used to have an expression. it's not the price. it's the money. this is not to be punitive on the people who make over $250,000. it's just to be fair to the entire country. you need that additional revenue in order to reduce the deficit and continue to make investments in growth. >> if speaker boehner says that, you know, we're not going to move on the rates, where are we? >> i hope that's just a bargaining position. but the fact is we have talked about it two step. do a down payment on cuts, on investments and on revenue this year and then in the next year, take the t
to reduce the deficit, 63% said no. 86% of the ads run for obama were personal attacks on romney. he won a stunning mandate to not be romney. he did not run on the basis he was going to do massive new spending and the kind of tax increases, $1.6 trillion that he's now talking about. and at the same time that obama was elected president, the republican house, which had twice voted for a real budget -- remember, the president's budget he claims he has a mandate for was put up before the house and the democrats all voted against it. in the senate, the democrats didn't want to have anything to do with it. it's a little hard to argue, he had a mandate for something the rest of his party ran away from. >> well -- >> did not run ads on those issues. >> and, of course, it was a bit more complicated than that. but to your point about the exit polls, it's true, most people said that they didn't want tax increases to solve the deficit. what they said -- the majority, was they wanted both balanced. they wanted cuts and tax increases. which is what both john boehner and the president -- in very strid
chief of staff, erskine bowles, who chaired the first deficit reduction commission. they're concerned about the dangers ahead. so concerned that simpson took to the dance floor to urge young people to get involved. we'll also get the take of rising democratic star cory booker, the mayor of newark. what's his answer to the washington gridlock? and is he planning a run for governor against chris christie. for analysis, we'll turn to joe klein of "time" magazine. "washington post" columnist michael gerson and our own norah o'donnell and major garrett, our chief white house correspondent. it's all ahead on "face the nation." captioning sponsored by cbs from cbs news in washington, "face the nation" with bob schieffer. >> schieffer: good morning again. well to the famous combos of modern life, from mac and cheese peanut butter and jelly rum and coke, bread and butter, and salt and pep pepper, add one more pair simpson-bowles. alan simpson may be in wyomingy and erskine bowles in north carolina but you can't mention one without think of the other. when you headed up the bipartisan deficit c
with the president and other ceo's to discuss the impending crisis. we even published their own study on the deficit, copies of which are available here today. we look forward to continuing this conversation, keeping the dialogue on going for the next month is critical if we're going to solve this problem -- and we think our panel will be very enlightening in terms of what the issues are. so, al, with that i will turn it over to you and the panel. we look forward to reproductive hour. thank you very much. >> can everybody hear? i welcome you all to bgov -- if you do not know as much about it as you want, i invite you to stay, because it really is a fabulous place. we do have an all-star panel. i will start with my left, which is where bob corker says i always start. tim pawlenty, former governor of minnesota. i wrote that i thought that if he could get the nomination he would have been the strongest republican presidential candidate. i was absolutely right -- we just could not figure out how to get there from here. tim is now the head of the financial services round table, a job he took just about a
, we have seen record deficits and a record debt accumulate, and yet he keeps demanding that we raise taxes to pay for more spending. this will only hurt our economy. ernst and young has done an analysis of the president's proposal and said it will cost several hundreds thousands of jobs. there is a better way and the speaker has laid it out. it is an approach that calls for tax reform by reforming the tax code and passing responsible spending cuts in order to get our fiscal house in order. that's what america wants. this is our opportunity to do the big things. this is our moment to provide that leadership that america desperately wants and we stand here ready to take the action necessary. >> the american people are hurting right now and now is the moment where we need to step up to the plate and solve the problem. i don't know how any of us can look our kids and grandkids in the eye and explain to them that we aren't willing to pay for the things we are enjoying today but just going to send them the bill. that's why republicans have the proposal on the table that fixes the problem,
're serious about reducing our deficit, while still investing in things like education and research that are important to growing our economy, and if we're serious about protecting middle class families, we're also going to have to ask the wealthiest americans to pay higher tax rates. that's one wrins pal i won't compromise on. >> good saturday morning to you, mike. >> hi, alex. >> let's talk about the time line. is there a realistic one in which this can all get done by the beginning of the year? >> i think there is, alex. i think people know the parameters of the year. it's just can they get there, do they have the political will to get there. more importantly, alex, do they have the votes to get there in the house of representatives. you heard the president. he says no compromise on this issue of raising taxes for the wealthy. there's one glimmer of hope, how much to hike taxes. as you know, clinton tax rates for wealthiest americans were 39.6%. that's what's going to happen at the beginning of the year. right now they are 35%. the president has been insisting all along those rat
repeatedly said and our caucus again just confirmed that job creation equals deficit reduction, and we must put the country back to work. we have proposals that are on the floor. we still believe that even with the -- what little time remains and what little time remains when we're actually working, this is still possible. this is still doable. this is not a democrat or republican issue. republicans believe that america needs to go back to work. it's just a matter of having the will to do it, the programs are out there. compromise can be made around the streamlining of regulations to make sure that we are putting people back to work. if chris christy and barack obama can get -- chris cristie and barack obama can get together on that, and i know what's transpired and how the impact of our infrastructure has taken place along the eastern seaboard, it's something we ought to be able to rally around immediately. and of course everyone, everyone deserves a $250,000 tax break. we all agree on that. so why not just simply adopt it and then come back and we'll have time to address the issues as it
. >> republicans frequently argue it's critical to get a handle on the deficit before the u.s. becomes like greece. there is a terrible economy with 26% unemployment highest in europe, almost no job opportunities for young people frequentenly lead toro riots in the streets. here is leading democrat is suggesting cutting spending too quickly is a real problem. >> the european community now is concerned about all the austerity. there are many, many things you can do to reduce debt. but still have a stimulus aspect of the economy. >> experts though say europe's us aer the city a drag on the economic growth because it relies too much on taxation while failing to reign in the expansion of government. that would seem to back up a republican theme in the fiscal cliff argument. >> if we raise taxes on the top two rate, a million small businesses who employ 25% of the work force it will cost us over 700,000 jobs and reduce economic growth, lower take home pay and those things. that is a bad scenario. >> the league negotiator on the republican side of the table facing mr. obama says raiding taxes on upper -
are good. if you look at the deficit, much higher in the u.s. than in the euro zone, for instance, debt, higher than many countries in the euro zone including spain, germany, france. yet, the united states of america is able to borrow at the lowest rate in pretty much it's recorded history. so you have a very, very diverse landscape at the moment, but certainly would that could be significantly improved, or worsened by the situation that we have concerning the fiscal cliff, the fiscal deficit, and the debt of the country, three topics that can be addressed now on a comprehensive and efficient fashion. >> so what should this mean? i think i could interpret any given number, to think oh, that means we should not touch taxes for any bracts, because it's as much money as we could have in it, or this means that we need more stimulus to keep the jobs going, or i could look at the debt and say this means we need to cut spending, so what does it mean? what would you, and what globally, what would mean the most for the u.s. to do? >> you know what you said? you would qualify as an economist. on
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 335 (some duplicates have been removed)